At 10:33 AM 11/25/98 -0000, Jon. Anderson and Marty Chaney wrote:

>Mr Wamer's Threat to me of litigation was for slandering him. I am not
>a person with any legal background, but generally understand that
>slander is defined as making false and unproven allegations as to this
>gentleman's character.

Mr Wamer's threat makes it clear that he has no legal background, as
slander is *spoken* utterance or spreading of a false statement or
statements harmful to a persons character or reputation.

Leaving aside the very open question as to whether your statements are
falsehoods or have caused him material harm - as opposed to opinions,
which you are free to state, BTW - he'd have to sue for libel, as your
comments were *written*.

Libel is notoriously hard to prove.

Mr. Wamer should not only learn the difference between libel and slander,
he should learn that courts can, and do, at times penalize people for
bringing injurious frivolous suits. Not only would a court likely toss
him out on his ass, they might well force him to pay Court costs, your
legal and other expenses including compensation for lost income, for his
having wasted the Court's time.


- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net